Math, Madison, food, the Orioles, books, my kids.

Tag Archives: design

has a Zuni sun symbol in the middle of it, which people correctly feel is a sort of random and annoying and unrelated-to-Madison vic of somebody else’s religious symbol. On the other hand, on pure design grounds it’s kind of a great flag! Simple, but you see the lakes, the isthmus, the Capitol. The new flag elegantly keeps all that while skimming off the cultural appropriation:

But you are the people reading this, so your opinions matter more than mine! Are serif fonts indeed more reasonable? Is wider better or worse? (I keep the browser window very wide, like a screen, but for all I know, maybe people use the aspect ratio of a piece of paper.) Am I right that it’s completely unacceptable for only excerpts from the post to appear on the front page?

Feel free to suggest specific themes or general design principles. I just want to be presentable!

Share this:

Like this:

A clock radio has a slider that selects the mode: “Alarm, Music, Off, On.” The “Off” position is the third position of four. I only just now realized that this is the result of conscious thought. Placing “Off” on either end makes it very easy to turn the radio off with a swipe of the hand, which is exactly what an alarm must not allow. The very meager amount of extra difficulty created by putting “Off” in one of the two interior positions probably makes the radio quite a bit more effective.

It’s possible everybody else in the world has already thought about this.

Share this:

Like this:

Going through old things, found this T-shirt, sure to spur memories for anyone who lived in greater DC in the late 80s:

Ed Meese was the Attorney General when I was a kid. I’m sure my political consciousness was not sufficiently developed at this point to have had an authentic opinion about Ed Meese. But like any warm-blooded kid I had a taste for the safely transgressive. Something I didn’t know at the time, and which maybe wasn’t publicly known at the time: the “Meese Is A Pig” posters and T-shirts were made by Jeff Nelson of Dischord Records.

Like this:

I’m teaching Bayes’ theorem this week in my discrete math course, and that reminds me of an interesting puzzle related to the “argument by design” for God’s existence. The argument goes something like this: the probability that the universe would, by pure chance, have the physical constants “fine-tuned” in such a way as to allow intelligent life is spectacularly small. The probability that God would create the universe in this way, though, seems pretty high. So, according to Bayes, whatever prior degree of belief we might have in the existence of God should be much amplified by the fact that the universe is so hospitable to human life.

Objection to this argument: if the physical constants of the universe weren’t fine-tuned to permit our existence, we wouldn’t be here to notice! So the observation that the constants are fine-tuned carries no information, and shouldn’t be allowed to affect our beliefs.

Objection to the objection: Then suppose you were blindfolded in front of a firing squad, you hear twenty shots ring out, and you find yourself alive and unharmed. Quite naturally, you’re drawn to the conclusion that the firing squad must have missed you on purpose. Now a philosopher wanders by and objects: “But if you’d been killed, you wouldn’t be here to make that observation, so the fact that you survived carries no information and shouldn’t affect your beliefs about the intentions of the firing squad!”

At this point your confidence in philosophers would be shaken.

Elliot Sober handles this version of the argument by design, along with many others, and their corresponding objections and counter-objections, in a very thorough and clearly-written paper (.pdf file). So rather than try to unravel this knot in a blog post, I’ll give you one more puzzle.
Suppose you roll a die 20 times and get

6-4-1-5-1-2-1-3-3-1-6-2-4-1-5-1-3-2-4-5

A person sitting next to you now pipes up and says, “Well, there you have it, very strong evidence of the existence of God.”

You: “How so?”

Person: “Any God I can conceive of would certainly have arranged for those dice to fall 6-4-1-5-1-2-1-3-3-1-6-2-4-1-5-1-3-2-4-5. So the probability of that outcome, conditional on God’s existence, is 1, while the probability conditional on God’s nonexistence is 6^(-20). So you and I both have to drastically increase our degree of belief that God exists.”

How similar is this to the argument by design for God’s existence? To the firing squad argument that the shooters must have missed on purpose? Which of the three arguments are right and which are wrong?